Uncle Sam in the Nursery?
How the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child May Soon be Disciplining Your Family

Last week over 80,000 families in Great Britain received demoralizing news. Concerned about the legitimacy of homeschooling, government ministers disclosed plans to control and monitor homeschooling families by requiring them to register with local authorities, present learning plans, and undergo regular inspections. Part of these procedures would allow government officials to interrogate children without a parent present, permitting local authorities to intervene in family affairs in an unprecedented way.

One may ask just how a democratic nation could justify such an appalling exploitation of administrative authority. The answer lies in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), a United Nations document ratified by every country but the United States and Somalia. Outwardly masquerading as a document promoting human rights for children, the CRC actually circumvents parental rights by imbuing governments with the ultimate authority to determine “the best interests of the child.” In Great Britain’s case, the document justifying this type of intrusion into the affairs of British homeschooling families is referred to as the Badman Report, which was submitted to the British parliament earlier this month and now awaits legislative action. The author of the report cited Articles 12 and 29 of the British-ratified CRC to support its position, and further stated:

“I am not persuaded that under the current regulatory regime that there is a correct balance between the rights of parents and the rights of the child either to an appropriate education or to be safe from harm. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) gives children and young people over 40 substantive rights which include the right to express their views freely, the right to be heard in any legal or administrative matters that affect them and the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas. Article 12 makes clear the responsibility of signatories to give children a voice:

‘Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

Yet under the current legislation and guidance, local authorities have no right of access to the child to determine or ascertain such views,” the report finds.

Therefore, authorities not only must have access to homes and private interviews with children, they should, “secure the monitoring of the effectiveness of elective home education,” Badman wrote.

While outwardly alarming in its own right, this scenario is not a remote possibility on American soil. Though the CRC has not yet been ratified by the United States, the Obama administration publicly announced this week that that “the United States would have to undertake a lengthy review of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,” even while adding that it was “a ‘shame’ the United States stood alone with Somalia in failing to support it.” U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, made it clear that administration officials are currently discussing “when and how it might be possible to join.”

For any involved and dedicated parent that seeks to raise his/her child according to what he/she believes is right, this statement should send off wild alarms for the following reasons:

1. The CRC is a treaty which creates binding rules of law that once ratified, becomes compulsory for American families, courts, and policy-makers. In accordance with Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, (also known as the Supremacy Clause), when ratified as a treaty the CRC it automatically overrides virtually all American laws affecting children and families. This would include its ability to override even our own Constitution. Some elements of the document are self-executing, while others would require implementing legislation. The courts, on the other hand, would have the power to determine which provisions were self-executing, and would have the power to enforce the provisions that are self-executing.

2. Thus far domestic matters have largely been a matter for state or local jurisdiction, yet with the ratification of the CRC; the federal government would now receive power to directly legislate on all subjects (namely families and children) necessary to comply with the treaty. This would create the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.

3. A committee of 18 experts from other nations sitting in Geneva has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty that are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures. This effectively transfers ultimate policy authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee. And, according to the structural framework of the CRC any reservations, declarations, or understandings intended to modify our duty to comply with this treaty will be void if they are determined to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.

4. According to the text of the CRC, parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

5. Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

6. The “best interest of the child” principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.

7. A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

8. This treaty has been interpreted to make it illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.

9. Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

10. Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

11. Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

12. Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services without parental knowledge or consent.

If you are also troubled by the current administration’s plans to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, please take action by contacting the following:

1. Call the White House comments line at 202-456-1111. Tell them you heard the administration wants to ratify the CRC, and you strongly oppose this giving away of U.S. sovereignty to the UN. Also keep in mind that this treaty gives the government jurisdiction to override any decision made by any parent if the government thinks that a better decision can be made-even if there is no proof of any harm. You can also send them a message online at www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

2. Call your Congressmen and Senators and insist that they oppose ratification of this treaty. Ask them also to overcome the potential threat by cosponsoring SJRes 16 (for the Senate) or HJ Res 42 (for the House) – the Parental Rights Amendment. (See www.parentalrights.org for details).

4. Help UFI continue to be able to fight for your parental rights at the U.N. and around the globe by DONATING TODAY! We cannot do it without your support.

There are 80,000 families in Great Britain who now wish they could have prevented the intrusion that the CRC would have within the walls of their own homes. Take advantage of the opportunity you have today as an American citizen and do your part. Our children and the future of society depend on it!
With Appreciation,
United Families International
DON’T FORGET!Help UFI Get to Amsterdam TODAY!

Parents are the Enemy

What kind of cannibalistic society assumes the worst of it’s parents? Or the flipside of the same coin, what society is so selfishly absorbed in personal “rights” for children that the purpose of those rights are lost?

It’s a topic I see surfacing again and again, and it’ s not just California. Planned Parenthood has it’s fingers in many pots in their attempts to liberate children from the care of their parents.

See this from CRI

—Beetle Blogger

CRI: Parents are the Enemy According to Some School Districts

The school board in Modesto City School District voted 4-3 to exclude parents from knowing when their children leave class for confidential medical services, in a meeting last night.

Modesto parents still have time to protect their rights, however, because the board members will cast a new vote on July 13.

“Only four people — three from Planned Parenthood, plus one activist– testified in favor of excluding parents. Every single additional testimony asked the board to include parents,” said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute.

She drove to Modesto and testified with parents, at the request of citizens in Modesto.

The discussion was over proposed Board Policy 5113, which pertains to confidential medical appointments for students as young as 12 years of age.

The associate superintendents who proposed this policy claimed that it would “meet a mandate for such policy and regulation.” BP 5113’s actual language was written by the California School Boards Association, which advises many districts on their school board policies.

In reality, there is no mandate.

State law says that “school authorities MAY excuse any pupil” (Cal. Educ.C. 46010.1, emphasis added). England pointed this out during the meeting. The law provides permission for implementing confidential release, but it certainly does not impose a mandate.

There are over 900 public school districts in California and many do not offer their students confidential medical release. Modesto’s current policy is parent- friendly.

Unfortunately, Modesto has sided with Planned Parenthood for now, against parents.

This vote was only the first reading, however, and the board’s final vote will be at its second reading during the next meeting. CRI is hopeful that one or two board members can be persuaded to vote for parental knowledge of what happens to their children at school.

Modesto parents and pastors left the meeting fired up. They are ready to tell their communities what is going on — so that more families can get involved, because people are still unaware.

Here are four ways to take action and defend parents’ rights in Modesto: Contact the board members, contact the media, educate your friends, and show up at the next board meeting.

Contact every board member, so they can go to the final vote saying that the community has spoken. Urge them to enact a parent-friendly policy. Tell them to include parents, not exclude parents. It is possible to sway some votes and protect families in Modesto.

The sooner we see the end of this bill the better. Harvey Milk was no Martin Luther King. He was no role model. His face on the front of the gay activist movement is not reason enough to take a day out of our children’s education to celebrate.

What homosexual indoctrination would come to your school under the guise of “Harvey Milk Day”? I’d rather not find out.

The good news is “Harvey Milk Gay Day” for public schools might be vetoed.

The bad news is SB 572 also could be signed — unless you pick up the phone today and ask your friends to do the same.

You see, while Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the same bill last year, it was because of a large outpouring of public opposition.

That opposition remains strong among the “silent majority.” A recent poll found only 1 out of 5 Californians want a statewide “day of significance” honoring Harvey Milk.

But homosexual-agenda advocates are turning up the heat. Sean Penn, who starred in the movie “Milk” about the late San Francisco homosexual activist, has talked to Schwarzengger to ask him to sign SB 572. So has Milk’s homosexual activist nephew.

Of course, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual activist groups are working hard to pass “Harvey Milk Gay Day” into law. They’re generating calls and emails to Schwarzenegger urging him to sign this horrible bill. You had better be doing the same, only to demand a VETO instead, especially right now, since SB 572 has just passed another committee.

As you can see, this is a dynamic situation that could go either way. But one thing’s for sure. If Arnold Schwarzenegger receives more calls, emails and faxes supporting “Harvey Milk Gay Day,” he will be tempted to sign it. Don’t let this happen!

PICK UP THE PHONE RIGHT NOW

Call Schwarzeneggers’ State Capitol office at 916-445-2841 right now. Listen to the recorded message and push the buttons to get to a live constituent services representative.

Kindly but firmly tell him or her, “I’m calling to urge the Governor to veto SB 572, “Harvey Milk Gay Day,” like he did last year.

“Even though the Senate has so far only passed five of the 55 bills the governor put on today’s agenda, the new proclamation includes an additional 10 bills, and same-sex marriage is No. 1.

I asked Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr., who has pledged a rebellion if gay marriage comes to the floor of the Senate, what he will do tomorrow if this comes to pass. He said he will do "something," and assured me it will be "big."

"Tomorrow we will have a good time," Diaz Sr. told the DN’s Glenn Blain. "Maybe I’m not upset. Maybe I solve the whole the problem tomorrow. Maybe tomorrow we come to an agreement and decide who’s really in control."

Asked if that means he might switch sides and join the Republicans, the Bronx senator balked.

To which Blain, to his credit, replied – completely deadpan: "I’m pretty sure tomorrow will come."

Diaz Sr. put out a press release earlier today announcing an "historic meeting" between the Hispanic evangelical community and new Archbishop Timothy Dolan and Dolan’s Madison Avenue residence. The senator told me he plans to cancel that get-together – no matter how historic – to stay in Albany.

UPDATE: Diaz Sr. created a bit of an uproar among the Democrats when he departed the chamber to meet with the Republicans – twice. He later told reporters that he had merely stepped out to have a sandwich with Sen. Dean Skelos.”

Take Action to Stop the Congress Created Dust Bowl

Have you seen the dead orchards down California’s Central Valley? Have you heard the heartbreak? Have you seen the signs? Are you ready to do something about the government’s misuse of California’s water and the havoc it’s wreaking on the farmers and communities of this great state?

Find out more about the potential solution, the Two Gates Water Project. Learn about the issue! Have your voice heard. This issue will affect you whether you’re a farmer, an environmentalist, or just a mom trying to get fresh fruit and vegetables into the family budget.

Rally for Water

At Fresno City Hall

ON July 1, 2009 the California Latino Water Coalition is planning a rally for water at Fresno City Hall. Assembling at 11am on P Street between Fresno and Tulare Streets in downtown Fresno.

Where: P Street between Fresno and Tulare streets in Downtown Fresno

With Delta pumping remaining curtailed because of the Delta smelt court rulings
and a new “biological opinion” under the Endangered Species Act promising
to make things even worse in the valley and state, it’s time to again raise
signs and voices. The California Latino Water Coalition invites you to join farm
workers, farmers, business people, family members, elected officials and other
fellow Californians for a Rally For Water July 1, 2009. With unemployment
and social and economic damage on the increase, this latest National
Marine Fisheries Service ESA protection plan for salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon
and killer whales will hit and harm Central Valley Project and State Water
Project users alike and may well extend the massive CVP water supply and
farm production cutbacks from the West Side to the East Side. All of California
is certain to suffer more!

Working for State Marriage Amendment

From Marriage News:

“After becoming the fifth state to legalize gay marriage on May 6, the State of Maine has seen its citizens rally to stop the law from going into effect. It appears that the new statewide strategy to oppose the redefined marriage law will follow California’s Proposition 8, which successfully amended California’s constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

[…]

The people of Maine have taken many cues from California’s 2008 strategy for protecting traditional marriage, even hiring Schubert Flint Public Affairs, the powerhouse public relations firm that managed the Proposition 8 campaign and helped win 52 percent of the vote in last November’s California election. The PR firm says it will play a consulting role to Maine’s citizens who seek to preserve historic marriage and family. Polling data suggest that the majority of citizens in Maine oppose same-sex marriage.”

Happy Father’s Day

No society should ever promote fatherlessness.

“Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.” [Trayce L Hansen, PhD]

Protest His Appointment as National Supervisor for “Safe Schools.”

Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), was appointed by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to be Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

GLSEN once sponsored a conference at Tufts University that was advertised to "youth only ages 14 to 21."

Three homosexual activists employed by the Massachusetts Departments of Health and Education led a youth workshop titled "What They Didn’t Tell You about Queer Sex & Sexuality in Health Class." Among other activities, the activists guided the students on gay sex practices.

Jennings has spoken publicly about a high school student he once counseled who was in a sexual relationship with an older man — yet Jennings never reported this abuse to the authorities, the school, or the child’s parents.

GLSEN is the chief national group promoting policies to force affirmation of homosexuality in schools, beginning in kindergarten.

Should he be overseeing a major federal program designed to promote the health and well being of students and families? We can only assume, given his past, that he will steer grant money toward programs like those offered by GLSEN that put a homosexual agenda ahead of the rights of parents and the safety of students.

“What God did was he dropped a huge boulder in the path of the same-sex marriage bill yesterday with the Senate coup.”

—Rev. Duane Motley, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms on the Senate coup.

Just a few weeks after the Pray for Marriage New York effort began, the looming specter and beating drums of the same-sex marriage movement in this state seem to have vanished overnight. Incredible. Truly, this is the answer to prayer for New York.

Check out these pictures from NYCF. Reports are from 1,000-2,000 attended the rally. Great job!

…Marriage advocates gathered on the Capitol steps in Albany, N.Y., today to support the state laws defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

The rally came one day after two Democrats in the state Senate switched their party affiliation as the debate over a same-sex “marriage” bill escalated. Republicans now control the Senate, which wraps up this legislative session in eight days.

Leading the rally were Tony Perkins, president of FRC Action; Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage; and Bishop Harry Jackson Jr., founder of the High Impact Leadership Coalition.

“Yesterday, we were thinking we needed to come up here and make a strong push so gay ‘marriage’ would not be passed,” said Valerie Case, a reporter at WMHR in Syracuse. “Today, it looks like it may not even be an issue. However, we know in New York that may not last long.”

Josh Griffin, who participated in the rally, said he can see God at work.

“First of all, God ordained marriage between one man and one woman, and it’s important to keep it that way,” he said. “Also, I believe it (same-sex ‘marriage’) has ramifications for our liberties here in the United States.”

So? How Does It Hurt YOUR Marriage?

I often hear people in discussions saying things like “How is extending marriage to include same sex coupling going to hurt your marriage?”

There are several answers but let’s just look at the harm to the institution of marriage itself. I’ve been reading “The Future of Marriage” by David Blankenhorn which is pretty insightful in places. In particular the following quote caught my eye:

“What purports to be a definition – marriage is not connected to children – is in fact a redefinition that ends up negating the very thing being defined.”

He goes on to explain himself by showing that the Justices in the Massachusetts supreme court argued that separating civil unions and marriage for same sex couples causes them to be “excluded from the full range of human experience.” [Opinion of the Justices, No. SJC-08860, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health p. 7]

Paradoxically in a 2004 follow-up the justices note that one “rational and permissible” method for resolving the controversy surrounding same sex marriage would be to “jettison the term ‘marriage’ altogether.” [Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, No. SJC-09163, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, p.9]

Let’s outline this for those still unclear:

Without marriage people are “excluded from the full range of human experience.”

One way to make everyone equal under the law is to “jettison the term ‘marriage’ altogether.”

Either marriage is essential or unnecessary. It can’t be both. You can’t say it’s so integral that it must be redefined to such a meaninglessly slim definition that you can get rid of it altogether. It’s circular reasoning. What is lost is the essential nature of marriage, the thing that makes it invaluable to society.

Procreation, children and families cannot be separated from marriage without rendering the whole useless.

I’m reminded forcefully of Solomon in the Bible who was presented with two mothers who both claimed parenthood of a baby. His suggestion was to “Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.” The mother who’s baby had died and was lying exclaimed, “Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it.” [1 Kings 3:25,26]

How does extending marriage hurt my marriage? Marriage is ABOUT children and family. Without family, it means nothing and a “rational and permissible” methods of achieving equality under the law is to “jettison the term ‘marriage’ altogether.” “[I]t is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.” [Betrand Russell in “The incongruous Spy p. 77 by John le Carre]

Taking the essence of marriage out of marriage DESTROYS marriage, that’s how it hurts my marriage.